Deep Learning-based Diffusion Tensor Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Reconstruction: A Comparison Study

TL;DR

This study compares deep learning models for cardiac diffusion tensor MRI reconstruction, demonstrating their potential for clinical use at certain acceleration factors and highlighting limitations at higher speeds.

Contribution

It introduces and evaluates three deep learning-based MRI reconstruction models specifically for cardiac diffusion tensor imaging, comparing their performance and clinical applicability.

Findings

Models perform well at AF 2 and 4 with no significant difference from reference.

SwinMR provides higher perceptual scores and is recommended as optimal.

Performance drops at AF 8, with some parameters unreliable.

Abstract

In vivo cardiac diffusion tensor imaging (cDTI) is a promising Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) technique for evaluating the micro-structure of myocardial tissue in the living heart, providing insights into cardiac function and enabling the development of innovative therapeutic strategies. However, the integration of cDTI into routine clinical practice is challenging due to the technical obstacles involved in the acquisition, such as low signal-to-noise ratio and long scanning times. In this paper, we investigate and implement three different types of deep learning-based MRI reconstruction models for cDTI reconstruction. We evaluate the performance of these models based on reconstruction quality assessment and diffusion tensor parameter assessment. Our results indicate that the models we discussed in this study can be applied for clinical use at an acceleration factor (AF) of $\times 2$ and $\times 4$, with the D5C5 model showing superior fidelity for reconstruction and the SwinMR model providing higher perceptual scores. There is no statistical difference with the reference for all diffusion tensor parameters at AF $\times 2$ or most DT parameters at AF $\times 4$, and the quality of most diffusion tensor parameter maps are visually acceptable. SwinMR is recommended as the optimal approach for reconstruction at AF $\times 2$ and AF $\times 4$. However, we believed the models discussed in this studies are not prepared for clinical use at a higher AF. At AF $\times 8$, the performance of all models discussed remains limited, with only half of the diffusion tensor parameters being recovered to a level with no statistical difference from the reference. Some diffusion tensor parameter maps even provide wrong and misleading information.